Copyright @ LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. All rights reserved.


LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

The Supreme Court has made the argument that judicial immunity is necessary even when it is being abused. Therefore, it is now both possible and acceptable for judicial immunity to be intentionally abused by being extended to the other two branches of the government in order to specifically and discriminatorily protect them against lawsuits from the people. This cripples the integrity of our government’s system of checks and balances and strengthens the perception that our government is in reality more of a dictatorship than a democracy. In my case, the judges sought to protect the government from my lawsuit. Therefore, they continually refused to address the pertinent issues and erroneously convoluted the facts of the case in order to unjustly dismiss it. The bias in favor of the government that these judges have demonstrated is a violation of fair play as well as my rights to due process and equal protection. Purposefully violating the constitution can be equated to warring against it and this is considered to be an act of treason. How can a judge who has commited treason against his country ever be allowed to pass judgment on anyone ever again? Let alone be allowed to collect a paycheck from the very citizens that he has betrayed?

ISSUES PRESENTED

1) Does any governing body have the right to violate the law with impunity?
2) Does any governing body have the right to take away our quality of life and financial security with no due process?
3) Who is responsible for protecting our rights when the courts choose not to?
To my shock, the courts have deemed these issues to be frivolous and without merit throughout the entirety of my case. You may be asking yourself why such important issues could possibly be branded as frivolous. Thanks to judicial immunity, the disturbing truth is that these issues can be written off as meritless simply because a judge says so.
In Case 14-C-1266, the judge ruled that my statement of claim lacked all of the required information and therefore dismissed my case. This ruling contradicts a recent decision by the US Supreme Court for Case No. 13-1318: Tracey L. Johnson, Etal. v. City of Shelby, Mississippi. This decision affirmed that, according to civil procedure, a statement of claim is only required to be a concise summary of the facts and issues of the case.
I faithfully served in the military for twenty years. It has understandably devastated me to learn that the judicial branch of our government can legally war against the people’s rights under the US Constitution. The primary mission of the Department of Justice is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States. However, upon speaking with agents of the DOJ, I was informed that most of their work is actually devoted towards stymieing the people’s efforts to bring cases against the government that concern constitutional violations. I am certain that the DOJ erroneously justifies this hypocrisy by arguing that the best method of protecting our constitutional liberties is to protect the government that is meant to uphold them at all costs. This is a deeply distressing attitude for them to be expressing as it means that most citizens filing lawsuits against the government over legitimate constitutional issues will be unfairly railroaded by the DOJ as well as the courts.
Federal civil procedures reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome of the case and instead accept the principle that the purpose of pleadings is to facilitate a proper decision based on the merits of the case. These federal civil procedures may as well be meaningless if every judge has the power to disregard them whenever they so choose. The American people deserve to know that the primary purpose of our constitutional rights is for them to serve as a source of propaganda in order to ensure that Americans are loyal to the government. If I had been aware of this in the beginning, I wouldn’t even have bothered to take my case to court as I would have known that I would find no justice there. I would have been better served by taking these issues straight to the American people as I am attempting to do now.
Please help me to prevent this from happening to other Americans. Please read through the material that I have posted and act as the jury that has been unfairly denied to me by the courts. If you support my views, please feel free to reach out to your government representatives and voice these concerns. Stand up and be heard, America. Also please post a commit on CNN ireport.
This court must write and publish an opinion that addresses all of the issues of this case. Due to judicial immunity, publication is the only means by which the courts can ensure a fair verdict in cases where there are true constitutional issues. It is far too easy for a judge to rule unfairly on a constitutional issue as they can simply deny publication to avoid public scrutiny. The best solution to this issue would be to void judicial immunity and make judges responsible for their unethical actions. The Constitution and supreme law of the land should always precede any other law. Therefore, a judge that purposefully ignores or defies constitutional law should not be protected by judicial immunity.
This reconsideration is an opportunity for the Court of Appeals to right a wrong committed against every person in this community. This can be achieved by issuing a supervisory writ to compel the City of New Holstein to address all of the ordinance and statute violations that have been committed. The Court of Appeals should also request an investigation into City Attorney Jim Burnett for his role in directing the New Holstein Common Council to pursue such unlawful actions. Please don’t hold your dislike for me against the people of this community. It is the responsibility of the justice system to protect these people’s inherent rights. By refusing to protect these people’s rights, the courts are essentially allowing an elected legislative body to act as though it were a dictatorship (note supporting a dictatorship is an act of treason). Why should the innocent people of this community have to suffer the consequences of our government’s illegal and unethical actions?
The shell game that the courts have been playing throughout this case has absolutely no resemblance to the fundamental fairness that is to be expected from our courts. This is yet another violation of our constitutional rights.
Did the New Holstein Common Council issue unlawful building permits? Yes, they issued many. Did they hold the legally required public hearings for addressing the variances that are necessary for a non-conforming business to expand? No, they did not hold any such hearings. Have these unlawful expansions decreased the quality of life and financial security of the affected community? They have unequivocally done so. Do any of these expansions have public benefits? There are none that I have been able to recognize. If so, what are they? The New Holstein Common Council has refused to explain any of the benefits that they claim exist.
How does one meet the requirement of exhausting state remedies when doing so will open you up to a preclusion claim? In this case, the courts have chosen to support violators of our constitution even though it is their responsibility to defend the constitution. How can the courts possibly hope to determine the constitutionality of the issues in this case without fact-finding, discovery, and depositions? The outcome of this case should ultimately have been determined by the answers to a few simple questions.
The Court of Appeals dismissed my case under a trumped-up charge of claim preclusion. Their written opinion focuses solely on the rezoning issue even though it is not relevant to this particular case and I did not even argue about it in my brief. Although this rezoning never should have been allowed to move forward until all the violations were addressed, this issue was not presented in my arguments to this court for Case 13-CV-31
I have been looking for answers for over three years. Not only have these answers been refused to me, but now I am being punished with legal fees due to the misconduct of the courts. Apparently, the violation of my 1st Amendment rights was not important enough to be addressed in the Court of Appeals’ opinion. Throughout these proceedings, the courts have been playing a shell game of misdirection in order to avoid addressing the relevant issues. There is a shocking statement made by the judge which demonstrates that the courts should lose subject matter jurisdiction for this case. In the partial transcript that was submitted to the Court of Appeals, the judge erroneously argues on behalf of the defendant that a non-conforming business has the right to expand. This argument directly contradicts our state statutes. This single statement should have been sufficient to overturn the trial court’s ruling, because it acknowledges the fact that the courts know the law has been broken.
When a judge fails to follow the law and disregards civil procedures, he loses subject matter jurisdiction which voids all decisions made in that case. There is also a very compelling argument that when a judge uses his authority to violate the constitution, that judge is warring against the constitution. This is an act of treason. The 1st Amendment states that I have the right to petition the government for answers without being punished with legal fees. In this case, the judge violated this right by offering to assess legal fees against me even though the defendant had not yet requested them.
Since the courts refused to address the issues, I was left no alternative but to file Case 13-CV-31 for the violation of my rights to due process and equal protection. Ordinances exist for the sole purpose of protecting the people. By denying us the protection of these ordinances, the courts have violated our rights under the 14th Amendment. The courts have also seen fit to protect a legislative body that has repeatedly and purposefully disregarded civil procedures. First of all, the New Holstein Common Council issued unlawful building permits. Secondly, they refused to hold legally-required public hearings to address variances for the ordinance violations. Finally, they allowed a non-conforming business to unlawfully erect several structures without building permits so that property tax increases could be avoided.
The higher courts will always dismiss a case that wasn’t originally heard by the lowest possible court. For this reason, the first action that I took was to request a hearing with the New Holstein Board of Appeals in order to address the ordinance violations and the new structure that is to be erected on the rezoned property. However, this request was unlawfully denied, so I filed a case under certiorari review. This case was dismissed without any of the pertinent issues being addressed. Apparently, the courts are in agreement with the New Holstein Common Council that obeying our city ordinances and state statutes is non-compulsory.

To the Court of Appeals:

Request for Reconsideration

​Case No. 13-CV-2888

US DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case No. 14-C-1266

LETTER  OF PROTEST

Case No. 14-C-1266

5) I am demanding a jury trial as these issues should be addressed by the people of this state. It is the people who should decide whether or not it is acceptable for a city government to ignore civil procedures and violate our constitutional rights.

Letter to the American People
With copies being sent to

the White House and the

US Supreme Court

Donald A. Waas, the Appellant-Respondent, moves the court, pursuant to State Statue 809.60, as follows: The WI Courts have taken a simple case of zoning and turned it into a constitutional nightmare by ignoring (protecting) violations of our laws. The only course of action to protect the people and the city government of New Holstein would have been for the courts to require the city to address every violation before considering the rezoning. Now, the Wisconsin Supreme Court needs to reestablish the fundamental principles and rights under Art 1 Sec. 1, 4 and 22 of the WI Constitution. The Supreme Court needs to define these basic principles/rights and specify the manner in which the lower courts should have applied them to this case. The people have the right to receive a fair hearing even if they cannot afford an attorney. The argument could be made that the state courts are just as responsible as the city for this dilemma. This bypass would give the Wisconsin Supreme Court the opportunity to rectify this situation and have the outcome of the case published. Our government cannot take anything without due process.

Motion to Bypass Court of Appeals to the

Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Case No 13-CV-2888

Judge Griesbach has erroneously stated that I was not injured by the City of New Holstein’s actions. How can he possibly believe that the violation of a person’s constitutional right to procedural due process is not an injury to that person? The City of New Holstein violated my constitutional right to procedural due process by refusing to hold legally required public hearings to address variances. People have the fundamental right to be protected by ordinances, state statutes, and the Constitution. A judge should never be allowed to use their authority to take away this right.
601*601 ¶ 4. We conclude that a litigant cannot bring a claim for money damages grounded upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983)[3] in a certiorari proceeding brought under Wis. Stat. ch. 68. We further conclude that although Hanlon could have joined his § 1983 claim with his ch. 68 certiorari review, he was not required to do so. Failure to join these actions does not preclude him from now bringing his § 1983 claim.
Hanlon v. Town of 600*600 Milton, 186 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 1999). ¶ 3. The Town of Milton (Town)[2] asserts that James D. Hanlon (Hanlon) is precluded from bringing his equal protection claim for one of two reasons. The Town argues that Hanlon's failure to bring his equal protection claim within his Wis. Stat. ch. 68 certiorari review precludes him from now asserting that claim; alternatively, the Town argues that Hanlon's failure to join his equal protection claim with his ch. 68 certiorari review precludes him from asserting that claim. We do not agree with either reason.
To the Clerk of Court & Judge William C. Griesbach: This is a letter of protest of Judge Griesbach’s ruling for Case 14-C-1266. How can any judge ascertain that a case is frivolous and without merit based solely on a two-page statement of claim? How can this case be dismissed for claim preclusion when the following federal case law prohibits such a dismissal?
4) I have presented true controversies and constitutional issues to the Wisconsin courts. Their only response to these legitimate issues has been to ignore them and levy legal fees against me in an effort to oppress my attempts to protect our laws and rights. This is a violation of my rights under the 1st Amendment.
3) Case 13-CV-31 was a lawsuit against the City of New Holstein for their violation of my rights to due process and equal protection. I would like to note that my first act was to request (in August of 2011) for the convening of a board of appeals to address the rezoning and ordinance violations. The board of appeals also would have been called upon to address the structures that are to be erected on the rezoned property as these structures will require variances in order to be legally constructed. However, my request for a board of appeals was unlawfully denied. Denying me the protection of our legally-binding ordinances is a violation of my rights to due process and equal protection.
2) In Case 11-CV-245, the courts upheld a legislative body’s decision without seemingly considering the legislative intent of the ordinances or civil procedures. The City of New Holstein’s claim that all the violations are moot simply because the courts have upheld this rezoning decision demonstrates that the true intent behind the rezoning was indeed to attempt to shield the violations from legal scrutiny.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1) In September of 2011, I filed a case under certiorari review (Case 11-CV-245) to overturn a zoning decision made by the common council of the City of New Holstein. The key issue of this case was the city’s irresponsible policy of granting carte blanche to a non-conforming business. This business has been allowed to consistently violate city ordinances and state statutes to the detriment of the surrounding community. This business was allowed to erect structures without building permits on property that did not possess the proper zoning to house such structures. Variances were not issued for these structures even though they are legally required in order to preserve the safety of the citizens. Since no variances were issued, the city was able to avoid holding the legally required public hearings during which the variances must be addressed. This was a violation of our right to due process and has had a detrimental impact on both the financial security and quality of life in our community.
Every prospective judge must swear an oath of office before officially becoming a judge. However, from the moment that a judge is sworn into office, that oath of office is no longer binding as it can be violated with impunity due to the preposterously high level of protection offered by judicial immunity. As long as the judicial branch of our government is able to manipulate their judicial immunity in order to shield the executive and legislative branches from civil lawsuits, the citizens of the United States will effectively be living under a dictatorship as the government can never be held accountable for violating our constitutional rights. With the other two branches of government receive this protection the issue of judicial immunity will never be voided. For this reason, judicial immunity is probably the most important issue in American society today.
I think that most people in the United States would agree that our government is severely lacking in both transparency and integrity. However, there is a very simple first step that can be undertaken in order to begin solving this problem. This would be to set limits on judicial immunity and automatically revoke it if it can be proven that a judge has acted maliciously or incompetently.
I have provided the courts with indisputable evidence that a city government has purposefully violated our laws and constitutional rights. However, both the state and federal courts have failed to address these legitimate issues and have refused to grant a fair trial before a jury. The courts have determined that the issues of this case are frivolous and without merit. This is the only statement that the courts needed to make in order to dismiss the case and prevent it from being heard by a jury.
Our servicemen fight to uphold freedom and democracy. They are committed to defending our Constitution with honor and courage. Little do they know that they are subject to the authority of an elected dictatorship in which the courts unquestioningly support the government regardless of the illegality and destructiveness of its actions. I served in the military for twenty years and I am disgusted to learn that I and my fellow servicemen were risking life and limb in order to defend constitutional rights which the courts can choose not to protect.
The whole purpose of our constitution is to protect our rights from being infringed upon by the government. However, in this particular case, the courts have apparently determined that the constitution is a set of guidelines rather than binding law. As long as judicial immunity exists, the courts will be able to dismiss any civil case for any reason. Therefore, whenever the people seek to hold the government responsible for violating their constitutional rights, the courts will be able to extend that immunity to the government as judges cannot be held responsible for unfairly dismissing any case. For this reason, all cases alleging the violation of constitutional rights should be heard by juries as every judge is undeniably biased towards protecting the government rather than the people’s rights when the two come in conflict.